9th Circuit rejects Same-Sex "Marriage" Challenge

[levi501]

Gay "marriage" offends societal sensibilities and does not benefit society.

So did interacial marriage...but I have sneaking suspicion you didn't agree with that ruling either.

 

[JustJack!]

Gay "marriage" offends societal sensibilities and does not benefit society.

Gay civil union don't offend the sensibilities of the majority, and do benefit society. A gay family is a family too.

Once again, SCOTUS has affirmed that the 14th Amendment does not require States to grant any governmental recognition to same-sex unions. This is entirelly a State matter.

Yes, and they've also ruled that the government can take your house and give it to Walmart because the higher property tax revenue qualifies as public use, and that the fed can come in, smack down the state's right to police power, and govern what plants you may or may not grow in your back yard all under the guise of a federal power that is being warped and twisted to fit the governments agenda.

And that's just recently. Funny thing about SCOTUS, their rulings don't always jive with the Constitution.

It's not decent and compassionate to reward specific behaviors that do not work toward the continuation and survival of the human race.

It's not a reward when everyone else has it and you don't.

And it is decent and compassionate to "reward" when lack of such reward unduely, and needlessly makes their lives more difficult.

You have still not provided one reason why gays shouldn't be allowed civil unions. All you've done is oppose my points.

I wonder, would you be in favor of a "civil union" between multiple partners? I know activists don't like that question, but it's a valid question, one that they don't have an answer for.

Yes, I would support civil unions for any who wishes to get with as many people as they wish to get them with.

Why can't two straight roommates get a civil union. Maybe a different type that gays couples would get, but a contract with the government bestowing certain rights of access to the other one, in case of emergencies and such.

Why can't anyone who wants these benefits, regardless of the sexual aspect, get them. Sexshouldn't even come into the question.

The fact is:

a core feature of marriage is its binary,

We're not talking about marriage. We're talking about civil unions. A key difference which makes all of your arguing thus far void.

There is no good arguement against gay civil unions. That's why you haven't presented one.

Neither applies.

Because you say so? What are you, God?

My point stands until you actually refute it. Where did you learn to debate?

 

[george78]

Cite?

http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=23203


The national homosexual rights groups have opposed the lawsuits, arguing that the timing isn't right and that a loss at the Supreme Court could set bad precedent for decades. But the lawyer for Smelt and Hammer has indicated they would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

I've read it.

Read it again. Baker frames marriage (in accordance with establish SCOTUS precedent) as being vital to preserve to ensure the survival of the human race.

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Sex based classifications do not require strict scrutiny, but they do invoke intermediate scrutiny -- a step up from rational basis.

We don't have a sex based classification here.

"Sexual orientation" does not invoke either intermediate or strict scrutiny.

(See: Equal. Found. ofGreater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City ofCincinnati, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997);
Holmes v. Cal. ArmyNat’l Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997); Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d
256 (7th Cir. 1996); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d
677 (D.C. Cir. 1994); High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563
(9th Cir. 1990); Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989); Woodward v. United
States, 871 F.2d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Town ofBall v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 746 F.2d
1049 (5th Cir. 1984); Rich v. Sec’yofthe Army, 735 F.2d 1220 (10th Cir.1984))

There is a fundamental right to marriage. The questions being debated throughout the country today are: What exactly is marriage, what is its significance for our society, and what interest does the government have in regulating it? You seem to be in the camp that gender is and must be a sine qua non of the institution. Not everyone agrees.

It doesn't matter what people pretend, if you do not have a man and a woman, you don't have a marriage. Marriage is founded upon the distinction of sex. ([SIZE=-1]Jones v. Hallahan, 501 SW2d 588 (Ky. 1973)

[/SIZE]

As framed by, and according to, a District Court in Florida.

Based on Precedent from SCOTUS

Cite?

I'll get that for you.

Again, from a practical standpoint I'm arguing that I think SCOTUS will revisit Baker because a summary affirmance, while it adopts the judgment, does not necessarily adopt the rationale of the lower court decision:

It may revisit it, but it won't overturn it.

 

[george78]

So did interacial marriage...but I have sneaking suspicion you didn't agree with that ruling either.

FYI: Before I answer, you should know I'm half black.

There is a clear distinction between classifications based on race, and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. One does benefit society, by providing the only union that can continue the human race. The other, does not.

 

[beechy]

Delete: Duplicate Post ... Sorry

 

[beechy]

http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=23203


The national homosexual rights groups have opposed the lawsuits, arguing that the timing isn't right and that a loss at the Supreme Court could set bad precedent for decades. But the lawyer for Smelt and Hammer has indicated they would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

Waiting for what they perceive to be the right case coming from the right court doesn't mean that they think Baker won't be overturned.

Read it again. Baker frames marriage (in accordance with establish SCOTUS precedent) as being vital to preserve to ensure the survival of the human race.

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Once again, my argument is that SCOTUS will revisit this "framing," since, per Mandel v. Bradley (see prior posts for link) they have not necessarily adopted this reasoning, which therefore simply stands as a state supreme court position on par with, say, that of the diametrically opposed Massachusetts Supreme Court.

We don't have a sex based classification here.

"Sexual orientation" does not invoke either intermediate or strict scrutiny.

(See: Equal. Found. ofGreater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City ofCincinnati, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997);
Holmes v. Cal. ArmyNat’l Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997); Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d
256 (7th Cir. 1996); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d
677 (D.C. Cir. 1994); High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563
(9th Cir. 1990); Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989); Woodward v. United
States, 871 F.2d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Town ofBall v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 746 F.2d
1049 (5th Cir. 1984); Rich v. Sec’yofthe Army, 735 F.2d 1220 (10th Cir.1984))

It depends on how you look at it. If I, as a woman, want to marry Jane, another woman, I would be allowed to do so but for her sex. Sex based classification.

It doesn't matter what people pretend, if you do not have a man and a woman, you don't have a marriage. Marriage is founded upon the distinction of sex. ([SIZE=-1]Jones v. Hallahan, 501 SW2d 588 (Ky. 1973)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Again, this is the issue at the heart of the debate.
[/SIZE]

Based on Precedent from SCOTUS

Based on their interpretation of a precedent from SCOTUS.

I'll get that for you.

Cool.

It may revisit it, but it won't overturn it.

Alright. Only time will tell, eh?

 

[beechy]

FYI: Before I answer, you should know I'm half black.

There is a clear distinction between classifications based on race, and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. One does benefit society, by providing the only union that can continue the human race. The other, does not.

Union between an egg and sperm is what continues the human race. Infertile straight couples can't "continue the human race" in the manner you envision. But lesbians can with a trip to the local sperm bank. A gay couple can through the help of a surrogate mother. Any couple can by adopting one of the hundreds of thousands of foster children awaiting homes in the system, or through other adoptive means. Are the only families we value as a society those which include children, and those whose children were conceived through the sexual intercourse of cohabitating parents in a civil marriage contract?

 

[Brennin]

So did interacial marriage...but I have sneaking suspicion you didn't agree with that ruling either.

It offended societal sensibilities, yes, but it cannot be said that it had no benefit to society. Anyway, Kramer engages in handwaving when he says the state has no compelling interest in proscribing gay "marriage" but it does have a compelling interest in proscribing incest.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

FYI: Before I answer, you should know I'm half black.

Woohoo.

There is a clear distinction between classifications based on race, and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. One does benefit society, by providing the only union that can continue the human race. The other, does not.

The distinction is merely that [most of] society accepts interracial nuptials, but not same-sex ones. This will undoubtedly change, as the upcoming generation is noted for being hypertolerant.

 

[Brennin]

george78:

You should have your reputation button enabled.

 

[Brennin]

Gay civil union don't offend the sensibilities of the majority, and do benefit society. A gay family is a family too.

I dispute.

My point stands until you actually refute it.

Your point remains unsubstantiated.

 

[levi501]

FYI: Before I answer, you should know I'm half black.

irrelevant.

There is a clear distinction between classifications based on race, and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. One does benefit society, by providing the only union that can continue the human race. The other, does not.

So are you seriously asserting that by allowing same-sex marriage it will hinder the continuation of the human race?

"survey says..."
*buzz*

 

[levi501]

Anyway, Kramer engages in handwaving when he says the state has no compelling interest in proscribing gay "marriage" but it does have a compelling interest in proscribing incest.

In regards to procreation the state does have a compelling interest to proscribe incest.

 

[tcampen]

SCOTUS rulings interpret the law and Constitution, but do so within the sensibilities of the time. (Even Scalia cannot escape this, try as he might.) While sexual orientation may not be a protected class, the way race or national origin is, at the moment, I believe it is only a matter of time before common sense and common sensibility moves beyond the pettiness of thinking gay marriage will somehow be a detriment to society. Personally, I think it is an Equal Protection (14th Amendment) issue to deny gay civil marriage. However, society apparently just isn't quite ready it.

Let's put a few concepts to bed....

1. Procreation as the primary function for marriage is absurd. If that were the case, one would need a fertility test before being granted a marriage license. Is it an important FACTOR? Yes. But please don't insult our intelligence.

2. If a gay couple is in a committed relationship, identical to a heterosexual marriage in every respect except legal status and gender, why wouldn't official recognition be better for society? Promoting stability within intimate relationships is in society's interest. Gay and lesbian couples DO have children, and ARE families. Granting legal status only promotes a healthy society, and does not to degrade it.

3. As a married man in a traditional home, my wife and I have yet to think of how our marriage and family will be harmed of our gay neighbors were to be married. So, I challenge any of you married people who oppose gay marriage...how would YOUR marriage be harmed as a result of gay couples having the same legal marriage status? How would the marriage of anyone else you know be harmed in any way? I have yet to hear one concrete, tangible example.

 

[Brennin]

In regards to procreation the state does have a compelling interest to proscribe incest.

1. What about infertile incestuous couples? Or incestuous couples who do not plan on procreating?

2. What about normal couples with inheritable genetic disorders? Should the state deny them a marriage license?

I love using the arguments of the opposition against them.

 

[beechy]

Gay "marriage" offends societal sensibilities and does not benefit society.

Since when did "offensive" become a compelling government reason (or any reason at all) for prohibiting something? And (as I've pointed out in another thread) since when did a judgment about whether something is "beneficial to society" become a compelling government reason (or any reason at all) for prohibiting something? (As I said in the other thread, do video games benefit society? Do bars? How about MAD magazine?)

 

[fillerbunny]

I'd just like to interject that it is my personal opinion that MAD magazine does in fact benefit society.

The rest of what I'd intended to post (read: the serious bit) was pretty much covered by tcampen a few posts back, so I'll spare you the redundancy.

 

[beechy]

1. What about infertile incestuous couples? Or incestuous couples who do not plan on procreating?

2. What about normal couples with inheritable genetic disorders? Should the state deny them a marriage license?

I love using the arguments of the opposition against them.

My concern with permitting incest between immediate family members would be less about genetics and procreation than it would be about familiy dynamic. If a divorced father of a 15 year old daughter, for example, could marry her as soon as she surpassed the age of statutory rape, I would be concerned about the impact that could have on the parent/child dynamic while she was still a minor. But, frankly, I really don't care if people want to marry their relatives.

 

[Toboe]

Gay "marriage" offends societal sensibilities and does not benefit society.

Brennnin how could it be anything but beneficial. It would encourage homosexuals to seek out monogamous relationships and it would set a precedent for civil rights around the world.

 

[Brennin]

Since when did "offensive" become a compelling government reason (or any reason at all) for prohibiting something?

Since before the Constitution was ratified.

And (as I've pointed out in another thread) since when did a judgment about whether something is "beneficial to society" become a compelling government reason (or any reason at all) for prohibiting something? (As I said in the other thread, do video games benefit society? Do bars? How about MAD magazine?)

Since when did video game players want official recognition for the love they have for their consoles?